PREM SINGH Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE land of the petitioner was acquired and the award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on March 17, 1972. The petitioner did not accept the compensation and submitted his application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter called the Act) on April 17, 1972, copy, Annexure P. 1. Since no reference was made by the Collector on the basis of the said application, the petitioner filed the present writ petition dated July 28, 1986 for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Collector to make the necessary reference. In the return filed on behalf of the Collector, the stand taken is that the petitioner accepted the compensation of his land vide award dated March 17, 1972, without protest on the same day. Since the acceptance of the compensation was without protest, it was taken that the petitioner accepted the award. A registered communication was sent to the petitioner, copy, Annexure A, informing him that he received the amount of compensation without protest and, therefore, he was not entitled to any reference under section 18 of the Act. The petitioner did not challenge the said order of the Collector for more than 13 years. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable as it suffers from laches. No counter -affidavit has been filed by the petitioner controverting the allegations in the return that necessary intimation was given to the petitioner vide, Annexure A. There is absolutely no explanation for the inordinate delay of 13 years to bring this writ petition. Of course, it was not for the Collector to decide as to whether compensation was received under protest or not, but the petitioner never challenged the said order for a long period of 13 years. That being so, he is not entitled to any relief in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, without giving any cogent explanation for this unwarranted delay on his part.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Civil Writ Petition No. 3353 of 1984, decided on September 11, 1984, and Civil Writ Petition No. 8309 of 1987, decided on May 10, 1988, and also on Ram Kishan v. The State of Haryana 1986 P.L.J. 399, to contend that the order of the Collector was illegal and hence without jurisdiction, but the same have no applicability to the facts of the present case. In none of these cases, a situation had arisen where the order was passed by the Collector, but was not challenged by the petitioners for a long time. As observed earlier, even if the order of the Collector was wrong in determining that the amount was not received under protest, the said order should have been challenged by the petitioner within a reasonable time. Having failed to do so, be cannot challenge the same after such a long time without any cogent explanation for the same on his part.